I have come round to the view that caps cost more than they save

In regulated financial services we do not really have the choice. Our variable pay sits under a remuneration policy that expects a maximum ratio to fixed pay for certain roles, and conduct risk is part of the reasoning. An uncapped plan for people selling to retail customers would not get past our risk committee.

Decelerators are caps with better manners. A lower rate above 250% still tells the seller that the next order is worth less to them than the last, and you will see the same deferral, only milder. If the order is profitable, pay for it.

I do not agree that a decelerator is the same thing. Stopping payment and reducing the rate produce very different behaviour. We have paid 0.5x the base rate above 300% for six years in a packaging business, and I cannot find a deferral pattern in the order dates. People will still take half-rate money.

The director pay argument deserves a direct answer and not an apology. In a good year our best seller earns more than her vice-president. We tell both of them that at the start. The vice-president's package has equity and far less volatility. Nobody has resigned over it.

Useful challenge, thank you. The point about caps being reasonable where quotas are known to be poor is the one I had not given enough weight to. I would still say that is an argument for fixing the quota within a year or two and not for a permanent cap, which is what ours had become.